Every week, GBH News’ panjandrum of politics Adam Reilly runs down the big ways that the Trump administration and its decisions are intersecting with the politics and people of Massachusetts.

Reilly joined GBH’s Morning Edition host Mark Herz to share his analysis on last week’s developments. What follows is a lightly edited transcript.

Mark Herz: We are actually going to start with something a little bit different, with you puncturing some of your own punditry. What is your mea culpa all about here, sir?

Adam Reilly: Yeah, well I got a prediction wrong a couple weeks ago that I wanted to double back to and acknowledge. You and I were talking about threats that were being made at the time to Harvard University by the Trump administration, which was threatening to withhold billions of dollars in grant funding unless Harvard effectively ceded control of internal policy making to the federal government. When we were talking about this a couple of weeks back, I predicted that Harvard would end up going along with Trump’s demands.

Columbia, people will remember, was faced with similar demands from the Trump administration and basically ended up conceding. As it turns out, as you’ve been talking about all week on Morning Edition, Harvard did the opposite. Now the university is being held up as an example by people who want key American institutions to do more to resist Trump’s push for complete control across all sectors of society.

I think my mistake in retrospect was paying too much attention to the very somber tone of Harvard president Alan Garber’s initial response to the Trump administration. And I also assume that some steps that were taken involving antisemitism on campus were being taken because of looming federal threats as opposed to because Harvard genuinely thought they were the right thing to do. So I got out ahead of my skis on that one and wanted to publicly acknowledge that I got it wrong.

Herz: Noted, good job. We appreciate it.

Reilly: I do think it’s important, though, as a matter of principle for people who come on, make predictions and segments like this, to acknowledge when we don’t quite get it right.

Herz: High ethical standards.

Moving on, when it comes to resisting the Trump administration, which we were just talking about, one of the big figures locally has been Attorney General Andrea Campbell. When her predecessor Maura Healey was on the job as AG before she became governor, she sued the Trump administration nearly 100 times. You say Campbell could end up shattering that mark. How many lawsuits has our current AG brought to date?

Reilly: AG Campbell is now either leading or part of 13 lawsuits against the Trump administration. We are about a quarter of the way through Trump’s first year in office, so if Andrea Campbell were to keep up that pace and if she stays on as AG for the duration of Trump’s presidency, we could be looking at 50 lawsuits annually, getting Campbell to about 200 over the course of Trump’s term.

I talked to the AG recently about the pace of her litigation against the president. She made it clear, she takes zero pleasure in how many lawsuits she’s currently a part of. She also said she thinks there’s a fundamentally different quality that distinguishes Trump’s second term from his first.

Andrea Campbell [recorded]: The need for litigation is greater here because the stakes are higher. There is a targeted strategy of tremendous hate and vitriol directed at vulnerable populations of folks that also is not what we have seen before and a weaponization of certain agencies to go after folks in ways we haven’t seen. It has the potential to undermine our constitutional system, our democracy, and the rule of law as we know it, and suddenly the United States of America can look very different.

Herz: Now, back when Maura Healey was running for governor, we heard Republican critics complain that she’d wasted time suing Trump, when she could have been doing other things instead. Campbell became AG with visions of expanding the work the office does, and she’s done things like launching a new elder justice unit and gun violence prevention unit. Does she acknowledge that there’s any opportunity cost in going after Trump as frequently as your math seems to be saying she does?

Reilly: I would say she rejects the core premise of that question. When she and I spoke, Campbell made it clear that she doesn’t really draw a conceptual line between litigation that targets the Trump administration on the one hand and litigation on the other hand that she brings against other parties. As she described it, everything her office does when it comes to litigating is driven by the same basic criteria.

Campbell [recorded]: So we are looking at what actions might the administration be taking or threatening to take that would affect not only our economy, but our residents in a harmful way. So we see this as a continuation of our accountability work, whether it’s a company here, a person or individual here, or the federal administration, if they are looking to cause harm to our residents or to our economy we seek to hold them accountable.

Herz: All politics is local, I guess.

Reilly: Indeed. Or all politics is national.

Herz: Finally, before we wrap up, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who infamously said he was coming to Boston, bringing hell with him, has issued another threat recently. A reporter asked Homan if the leaders of so-called “sanctuary” states and cities should be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned. Homan’s response was, “Absolutely. And hold tight on that one, because it’s coming.” The administration has made it clear it sees both Boston and Massachusetts as illegally protecting undocumented immigrants, a characterization that both Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and Gov. Maura Healey have rejected. What do you make of this threat?

Reilly: I think there’s reason both to take it seriously and not to take seriously. As you mentioned, Homan has an affinity for tough talk that plays really well with the conservative base. It’s debatable whether his tough talk actually is manifested in reality. He did come to Boston a few weeks ago. There were hundreds of arrests made. Whether that constitutes “bringing hell to Boston” is debatable.

I would also note that Homan gave this answer in response to an extremely leading question from a reporter who basically wanted to, it seemed, tee him up to say exactly what he did. President Trump himself seems more interested in withholding federal funding from so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions than he does in prosecuting the people who lead them.

However, having said all that, we are living in extremely unusual times. As you remember, one of the Republicans who grilled Mayor Wu and the other Democratic years in congressional testimony last month ended up saying that she was going to suggest the Democratic mayors be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. So this isn’t a new idea. And if I were to turn on the news tonight and learn that the administration was prosecuting some Democratic official for alleged illegal immigration policies, I don’t think I’d be shocked.

There are just too many unprecedented things happening right now. We’re living in a moment where the unprecedented is the norm. So, if I were Mayor Wu or Gov. Healey, I think that this threat from Holman would make me at least a little bit nervous

Herz: Yeah, when I hear you say that, I just want to say that you saying the unprecedented is the norm. I don’t think you’re going to be coming back to correct that.

Reilly: That one I feel we’re on safe ground with.